September 8, 2014
Late last week, the last round of briefing in its motions for summary judgment have been filed by the parties in the Zuffa lawsuit in New York. Both sides made its final arguments to the Court in hopes of prevailing on summary judgment. The parties filed its reply briefs which address arguments made by the opposing side which rebut the initial summary judgment motions made by the parties.
To refresh your memory, New York is seeking to dismiss Zuffa’s lawsuit in total. It has already dismissed 6 of the 7 claims made by Zuffa in the lawsuit to legalize pro MMA in the state. Zuffa is attempting to strike down the law with its motion.
Zuffa’s Reply Brief
Zuffa reiterates some key points in its final briefing before the Court’s review. The emphasis is that the statute banning pro MMA (sec. 8905-a) is unconstitutionally vague (which is the remaining legal claim).
First, it notes that there are two independent reasons why a statute is vague: 1) lack of notice; and 2) the statute’s arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Zuffa states that the first prong is sufficient for the court to grant summary judgment in favor of Zuffa. In explaining its position, Zuffa states the standard that “a person of ordinary intelligence” would have reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited. Here, it argues that no one could know what is prohibited based on this statute.
The overarching theme for Zuffa is that the statute is so confusing that even state officials are not able to interpret it. It hammers home this point through the example of the state’s Attorney General agreeing at oral argument that an exempt organization can sanction a pro MMA event. Thus, how can the law be enforced.
In addition, it refutes an argument made by New York in its opposition brief that exempt organizations can sanction to only “single discipline” “traditional” “long recognized” martial arts. Zuffa points out in its legal argument that New York misinterprets and/or misreads the statute in its favor. Essentially, New York attempts to cite legislative history when one need only look to the plain meaning of the statute. Nowhere in the statute does it preclude pro MMA from being sanctioned by an exempt organization. Yet, Zuffa argues that New York tries to read into the statute. Zuffa also argues that the state’s enforcement has been arbitrary or discriminatory. In this argument, it states that after discovery in the case, it became clear that state officials lacked clear guidance in enforcing the statute. Here, Zuffa points out inconsistencies obtained through the discovery process (i.e., written interrogatories and/or depositions).
New York Reply Brief
New York argues for the dismissal of Zuffa’s case and in so doing it reiterates its strategy that the plaintiffs lack legal standing to bring this claim in federal court. It also argued that due to the fact that the statute is one of state law, a state court should render the opinion here. In supporting its lack of legal standing argument, it suggests that Zuffa had a mere “oral understanding” with an exempt organization (here the World Kickboxing Association) when Zuffa argued that it had an agreement with the WKA to sanction an event in the state. If it is found that there was an agreement, it would satisfy the legal standards of standing as there would be a recognizable injury (i.e., New York is preventing Zuffa from conducting an event through the WKA).
However, New York points out there was no written contract, details or anything else that has surfaced as evidence. New York also notes that the declarations in support do not indicate when the agreement between Zuffa and WKA took place. It also intimates that the claim that Zuffa and WKA had an agreement to sanction an event did not happen until after the filing of this lawsuit. It also argues that a state statute should be interpreted by a state court and that Federal jurisdiction should abstain from ruling until the state has interpreted the law. Here, it appears that a state court has yet to generate an opinion on the statute. In addition to its briefing, there is also the motion to strike brought by New York regarding some of the evidence cited by Zuffa in its briefing. If the court were to grant New York’s motion, a huge chunk of Zuffa’s argument would go away.
It does not appear that the court has determined whether there will be an oral argument in this case. The court, in its discretion, may review the pleadings and decide at that point whether an oral argument will help it make its decision. Once again, Zuffa provides solid legal arguments. The question is whether the arguments would satisfy the Summary Judgment standard which is whether there are no genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment is proper. As for New York, it is giving the court “an out” with its arguments (lack standing, state court proper forum). MMA Payout will continue to keep you posted.
August 24, 2014
Late last week Zuffa and the State of New York have filed its opposition to each party’s motions for summary judgment. The responsive briefing is the continued litigation in the UFC’s quest to legalize professional MMA in the state.
As you may recall, both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment. New York filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in hopes of dismissing the remaining claim by Zuffa that the New York law that bans professional MMA is unconstitutionally vague. Zuffa’s Motion for Summary Judgment would essentially strike down the law and preclude New York from its enforcement.
In its opposition to New York’s Motion for Summary Judgment it claims that it has standing to raise its challenge to the New York statute. The argument is in direct rebuttal to New York’s assertion in its moving papers that Zuffa had no standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place since it could not claim injury. Zuffa contends that it does have standing since it was the “object” of the state regulation. Here, Zuffa argues that it was a direct object of the law as it is prohibiting professional MMA in the state.
In addition, it rebuts New York’s contention that there was no injury (and thus no standing). The first was the claim that Zuffa had no plans to hold an event in New York and thus there was no injury. The second contention was that Zuffa had no agreement with an Exempt Organization in the statute (which would allow for it to hold an event in the state). However, Zuffa argues that it “has taken all steps – short of violating the criminal law – to hold a professional MMA event in New York and it need not put itself in legal jeopardy to establish standing.” In fact, in its brief, it indicates it has secured a date at Madison Square Garden for 2015. It also cites that the UFC had discussions with the WKA (“World Kickboxing Association”), an Exempt Organization under the New York law, about working together to hold a UFC event. Zuffa contends that there was a “meeting of the minds” about putting together professional matches in New York.
The opposition papers from Zuffa also argue that the statute in question is vague as to whether it is enforceable on Indian reservations in New York. Specifically, Zuffa argues in its pleadings that “it is interested in promoting events on Indian reservations in New York – particularly if it is unable to do so elsewhere in the state.”
New York responds to this assertion about its enforcement of a state statute on an Indian reservation (which as many know, Indian reservations are governed by federal law). New York argued that it has dominion over “offenses on Indian reservations within the State of New York to the same extent that it has over offenses commented elsewhere in the State.”
In addition, the papers also argue over the vagueness of the statute as it pertains to amateur MMA and the New York liquor statute which allows licenses at events.
Notably, New York is seeking to strike some of the evidence which Zuffa attached to its initial Motion for Summary Judgment stating that it is inadmissible for a variety of evidentiary reasons (e.g., lack of authentication, hearsay, irrelevance, opinion, etc.). The court will have to determine New York’s motion to strike prior to determining how to rule on Zuffa’s motion. Some of the evidence New York would like to have stricken from consideration is the issue with the differing interpretations of the law banning professional MMA in the state by multiple government officials.
The legal argument continues. Zuffa appears to have the clearer arguments in the opposition briefing. However, New York is seeking to strike the evidence which appears to be the most damaging – the multiple interpretations of enforcement of the law. This would undercut the argument that the statute is unconstitutionally vague since a portion of the legal argument is that the multiple interpretations of the law by the same officials that are to enforce it is evidence that the law is vague. If that evidence is wiped from the record, there’s less for the court to consider. We will see how each side responds to the opposition briefing. MMA Payout will keep you posted.
August 21, 2014
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by boxer Andre Ward which attempted to terminate his promotional contract with promoter Dan Goossen. Although the case was dismissed, there are other pending lawsuits between the boxer and promoter.
Ward had filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking declaratory relief which would invalidate the promotional contract with Goossen. Ward argued that the promotional contact he signed with Goossen exceeded the seven year maximum which would be in violation of California Labor Code Section 2855. Ward and his counsel had argued that the Court ruling should have preceded the CSAC Arbitration hearing this past spring. As you may recall, the CSAC ruled in favor of Goossen in determining the validity of the promotional contact. Adding insult to injury, the court used the CSAC ruling as guidance for its own ruling that the promotional contract was valid.
Although Ward lost here, he has filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Bay Area citing violation of the Muhammad Ali Act. As a result, Goossen has filed his own lawsuit for defamation which relates to statements made alleging Goossen’s promotional activities should be investigated for criminal activities.
Realistically, the loss here may not be as big as one might think. Essentially, the CSAC had ruled on the promotional agreement and the court appears to have just followed suit. Ward’s legal team is likely focusing on the Ali Act violations as well as defending the Goossen defamation lawsuit. Ward’s team might try to remove the Goossen lawsuit from LA Superior Court and “consolidate” it with its claim in federal court. This may be a strategic maneuver by Ward’s legal team and also a practical matter as there would be two different lawsuits in different courts (one federal, one state) with different court deadlines.
August 20, 2014
Boxing promoter Dan Goossen has filed a lawsuit against boxer Andre Ward and his attorneys as a result of Ward’s lawsuit claiming that the promoter violated the Ali Act when promoting the super middleweight.
The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court accuses Ward, his attorney James McCarroll and McCarroll’s law firm Reed Smith of “character assassination.” Ward had filed a lawsuit claiming that Dan Goossen of not providing financial disclosure information pursuant to the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. Prior to that, the two sides battled over the length of Ward’s promotional contract with Goossen. In that round this past spring, in an arbitration hearing, the California State Athletic Commission ruled in favor of Goossen,
Goossen now is claiming $10 million dollars in damages plus attorney fees as a result of what the promoter claims is a “vicious campaign to smear” him. The lawsuit appears to be due in part to public comments made by Andre Ward to BoxingScene.com that Goossen violated the Ali Act and that the U.S. Attorney’s Office launch a criminal investigation.
(H/t: Boxing Scene)
Boxing lawsuits never disappoint. From Goossen’s perspective, the inference that he is doing something criminal without factual evidence (not yet presented) feasibly hurts his business and you may see why he is filing the lawsuit. But can he prove a claim of defamation? The key issue in a defamation claim is that the individual making the defamatory statement must know that the statement is false. This may be a tough hurdle to surpass but we recently saw this occur with the Jesse Ventura defamation lawsuit.
Obviously, a lawyer accusing another lawyer of misrepresenting the truth is (believe it or not) frowned upon and is the proverbial “white glove slap across the face.” Look for this lawsuit, and the Andre Ward lawsuit, to heat up in the future. MMA Payout will keep you posted.
August 11, 2014
Andre Ward has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California against his promoter, Goossen Tutor Promotions and Dan Goosen. The lawsuit is premised upon the Muhammad Ali Act.
The lawsuit, filed on August 4th cites violations made by Dan Goossen which violate the federal law which was put in place to protect boxers from exploitation inside and outside of the ring. Namely, Ward accuses Goossen of not providing him with the proper payout information prior to an event which is required pursuant to the Ali Act.
The Complaint (found here) states that “Since the inception of Goosen’s tenure as Mr. Ward’s promoter in 2004, and continuing to the present, Goossen has repeatedly and systematically violated all disclosure requirements under the Ali Act by failing to timely provide Mr. Ward with full and complete disclosures.” The Complaint cites several specific fights where Goossen did not provide Ward the necessary payout information which would have included: 1) the amounts of any compensation or consideration that a promoter has contracted to receive from such match; 2) all fees, charges, and expenses that will be assessed by or through the promoter on the boxer pertaining to the event, including any portion of the boxer’s purse that the promoter will receive, and training expenses; 3) and any reduction in a boxer’s purse contrary to a previous agreement between the promoter and the boxer or a purse bid held for the event. (per Ali Act 15 U.S.C. sec 6307(c).
It was not until the spring of 2013 that Ward’s manager demanded the information from Goossen. According to the Complaint, Goossen failed to comply and when he did provide information it was “woefully inadequate.”
The Complaint requests that Goossen “provide a full accounting of all revenues and expenses related to any boxing matches in which Mr. Ward participated and Goossen served as promoter including, but not limited to, barter arrangements, multi-bout television and venue agreements, or any other boxing events originating from the relationship with Mr. Ward.”
Notably, the parties have gone to Arbitration in California this past spring with Goossen prevailing. However, Ward did not even show up to the Arbitration as it was his counsel’s contention that the Arbitration was not valid. The California State Athletic Commission ruled that the Arbitration this spring was valid since there was no previous objection. As far as the substantive issue at Arbitration goes, the parties disputed the duration of the promotional agreement. Due to a shoulder injury which sidelined Ward for a year, the question was whether the promotional agreement should be extended due to the injury to Ward. CSAC held that Ward was uncooperative when he returned from injury in seeking out a fight and thus the agreement’s original expiration was extended 14 months.
The lawsuit is just the latest in the ongoing saga with Andre Ward and his promoter. For what it is supposed to be, the Muhammad Ali Act has not had many boxers use it and prevail. We will see based on the information that will undoubtedly surface in the discovery process. It will be interesting what explanation is given by Goossen as it relates to the purported failure to provide Ward with payout information. Then again, the question of why it took so long for Ward to report this violation is something that will likely come up too.
MMA Payout will keep you posted.
August 4, 2014
The parties in the lawsuit involving promoter Main Events and Adonis Stevenson, Al Haymon, Golden Boy, Showtime and Stevenson’s manager have been dismissed per a letter sent to the Court on Saturday morning.
As we reported, the lawsuit filed this past May was based on alleged agreement for Main Events and their fighter Sergey Kovalev to face Adonis Stevenson what was anticipated as a big money fight on HBO. However, Stevenson signed on with consultant Al Haymon and took a fight under the Golden Boy banner. After the schism within Golden Boy, it was believed that the fighter left with Haymon.
A lawsuit was filed by Main Events claiming breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, tortious interference and interference with prospective economic advantage premised upon emails between Main Events and Stevenson’s manager. Main Events claimed that the emails constituted a contract while the defendants claimed that the emails were not a contract as other details needed to be hashed out before a contract could be signed.
As one might expect, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss based on their theory that the emails did not constitute a contract. The court allowed Main Events to Amend its Complaint on August 4th but decided to settle the case.
In a letter which looks to be sent on Saturday morning, August 2nd, counsel for Main Events let the court know of a settlement and sought a cursory request to extend the deadline to file an Amended Complaint in the event the settlement fell through.
As a result of the settlement, Kovalev faces Bernard Hopkins this fall which will be co-promoted by Golden Boy and Main Events.
It appears that all is well that ends well. It’s clear that Kovalev’s promoters, Main Events, wanted to be made whole based upon the feeling of being left with nothing after Stevenson signed with Al Haymon. The Hopkins fight is a good substitute for Stevenson. Moreover, the legal claims made by Main Events were tenuous especially with the theory of a contract based upon emails. Instead of spending money on legal bills, the parties were able to negotiate an alternative.
August 2, 2014
The state of New York and Zuffa filed Motions for Summary Judgment in the ongoing lawsuit which seemingly has no end. The filings, which were filed Thursday of last week, each hope to bring a resolution to the lawsuit filed by Zuffa in November 2011.
As most know that have been following this legal fight, Zuffa and other named plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General of New York in an effort to strike down the existing legislative ban on professional MMA in the state. The Court dismissed most of Zuffa’s claims including a legal claim suggesting it infringed against its First Amendment rights.
The remaining claims before the Court are whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague and the state liquor law which allows for liquor to be sold at events. Both parties have requested the Court to rule in its favor on the remaining claims.
For New York, it is requesting the Court to dismiss the challenges made by Zuffa. If granted, the case would effectively be over pending an appeal to the Circuit Court.
For Zuffa, it is requesting the Court to strike down the law banning professional MMA in the state. This would effectively allow for professional MMA in the state since the law would no longer exist. Of course, we’ll speculate on this later.
The standard for a Court to grant a Summary Judgment has the party filing the motion having to prove that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and that the person bringing the motion “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Basically, the Court must find that based on the facts presented, there is no reason to hear anything else about the dispute because the facts show there is no dispute. This certainly can be a tough threshold for any party bringing a motion.
New York’s Summary Judgment Motion
New York strategically argues that most of the named Plaintiffs must be dismissed because they have no standing. Essentially, they cannot bring the lawsuit because there is no injury (i.e., damages). In this scenario, if there are no damages, there is no standing to bring the claim. Plaintiffs cannot bring a claim on hypothetical damages, rather the damages must be “actual and imminent.” New York argues that most of the named Plaintiffs including Jon Jones, Gina Carano, Frankie Edgar, Matt Hammill and Brian Stann do not have the requisite standing because each have not suffered an actual injury and thus have no damage claim. The parties had agreed that Jones, et al would not be deposed if they would not provide any evidence of the vagueness allegation. Thus, New York now brings the motion to dismiss them.
It argues that the “only still surviving Exempt Organization,” the World Kickboxing Association (WKA) has only a “tentative” relationship with Zuffa. It also points out that Zuffa and WKA have no formal agreement to run an event or future plans to do so. Thus, Zuffa cannot claim injury.
Arguing that the Plaintiffs have no standing means the Court does not need to rule on the substantive legal issue-whether § 8905-a, the law banning professional MMA (or the New York “Liquor Law” which prohibits licensees who serve alcohol for on-premises consumption) is unconstitutionally vague.
While this may be cynical, arguing the procedural issues rather than the substantive content allows the Court an “out.” Courts would not have to decide on the constitutionality of a law if the procedures to address the actual issue are not met. Rather, Courts could allow the legislative branch the chance to address the law. And, as we know Zuffa has been trying to do this for a while with no success.
If you are looking for a recent case that reflects a Court ruling on procedural grounds rather than substantive, look at the U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled on California’s Proposition 8. In that case, the Supreme Court did not rule on the legal issues as it determined that the private parties that brought the lawsuit had no “standing” to bring the lawsuit because they had no injury.
Here, New York argues that the Plaintiffs have no “standing” to bring the lawsuit because they lack the requisite “injury.”
Zuffa’s Summary Judgment
Zuffa filed its Summary Judgment motion seeking that the Court determine that Section 8905-a and the New York Liquor Law is unconstitutionally vague as to professional MMA. It cites the uncertainty of state officials as to the application and interpretation of the law. It notes oral argument in which the Attorney General for New York admitting that professional MMA could be sanctioned by an Exempt Organization under the law. The AG later explained away his statement. Zuffa also argues that the law is vague and it encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Zuffa’s moving papers hammer away that the law banning professional MMA has many interpretations and these multiple interpretations even trip up those that enforce the rules.
The following summary is just a cursory look at the papers and does not even delve into the deposition excerpts and exhibits. At this point, we’ll wait on the opposition briefs which should include more declarations and deposition transcript excerpts. And then there will be more in the reply to the opposition briefs. The final pleadings for the motion will not be filed until early September. Based on the amount of paper to read, one might not expect a decision until December, or early 2015.
But let’s assume New York wins and the case is dismissed. Zuffa will have to consider its options which may include an appeal to the Circuit Court on the decision. It would cost more money and take much longer and unless there is movement in Albany, no MMA in New York.
But what if the Court sides with Zuffa and grants its motion for summary judgment? This would mean that the law banning MMA will be determined unconstitutional and essentially strike down the law. One might expect a stay and/or the state of New York filing a preliminary injunction to stay the ruling in an effort to appeal the ruling. The effect of an injunction would be a way to prevent pro MMA in the state before an appeal to the ruling is heard by another Court. The last time most of us heard about a preliminary injunction was in the Eddie Alvarez case. In the meantime, legislators in New York that are anti-pro MMA could draft new legislation which would clarify the vagueness issue and have it ready for Albany in 2015. We could be completely off on this scenario and we haven’t even seen opposition briefs but I thought I’d throw this theory out there.
MMA Payout will have more on these motions in the coming days.
July 31, 2014
On Tuesday this week, a Minnesota jury found in favor of former governor and professional wrestler Jesse Ventura in a defamation case against the estate of a former Navy SEAL that wrote in his best-selling book about a fight with Ventura. The jury awarded Ventura $1.8 million.
Ventura won $500,000 for his defamation claim as he denied getting into a fight with Chris Kyle, a former member of the Navy SEALs and elite sniper. He also won $1.3 million for unjust enrichment.
Essentially, the book, “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History,” written by Kyle included a part wherein he talked about an encounter at a bar in Coronado, California where a “celebrity SEAL” was talking a little too much. In the book, he was referred to as “Scruff Face.” Kyle stated that he punched him. It came out in media interviews promoting the book that the “celebrity SEAL” was Ventura.
Ventura sued in 2012 and continued the suit against the estate of Kyle after Kyle died in a shooting at a Texas firing range. He claimed that the book caused him to lose earnings and alienated him from the SEAL community
Source: NY Times
As a public figure, the standard for proving defamation is higher than that of a private person. Ventura is considered as a public figure for a variety of reasons including formerly holding public office, performing as a wrestler and hosting a variety of television shows.
In honor of those that have taken the bar this week, here are the factors for defamation:
- There must be a statement that has been published;
- The statement is false; and
- The false statement must cause injury.
For a public figure, like Ventura, to win a defamation claim, he must prove that the writer had knowledge that the information was false.
There’s no indication that the estate of Kyle will appeal the ruling. It appears that insurance paid the defense for Kyle’s estate and presumably will pay the verdict. Ventura states that the jury award will essentially pay off the lawyers. The jury deliberated several days after closing arguments which some suspected that Ventura had proved his case and it was a matter of how much he would receive. It would be interesting to know the evidence which showed that the incident retold in the book was false.
July 25, 2014
Al Haymon and the rest of the defendants sued by promoter Main Events for allegedly breaching a contract for a fight between Adonis Stevenson and Sergey Kovalev have filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. However, the Court has allowed Main Events to amend its Complaint which may render the motions moot.
Haymon, Showtime Networks, Inc. and Adonis Stevenson filed a motion requesting an oral argument be heard in the motion to dismiss the Complaint. In general, in federal court, most preliminary motions are decided on the moving papers unless oral argument is requested. Even then, the Court may deny a request. In addition, Richard Schaefer filed a motion to dismiss as well under the theory of respondent superior.
Essentially, Haymon et al. argue that there was no valid contract and as a result the Complaint filed against them should be dismissed. Since there is no contract, the allegations of tortious interference with a contract and interference with economic prospective advantage must be dismissed. Additionally, defendants claim that it lacked the requisite malice and intent needed for these claims.
The overarching issue is the lack of contract agreement. The defendants cite an email which preceded the purported email agreement between Stevenson’s promoter and Main Events. The email indicates that there was an agreement to agree on terms but details needed to be hashed over by attorneys at a later date. According to the defendants’ brief, in New Jersey, an “agreement to agree” upon material terms at a future time is an unenforceable indefinite promise.
Golden Boy also filed a motion to dismiss the tortious interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage claims as well. Golden Boy joined the motion of the other defendants but argued in addition that it was not responsible for Schaefer’s conduct on the basis of respondeat superior as the allegations occurred after Schaefer’s resignation. Basically, Golden Boy attempts to absolve itself from any conduct Schaefer may have done while as CEO as it pertains to dealings in the Stevenson-Kovalev deal.
While these Motions to Dismiss were filed, the Court allowed Main Events to submit an Amended Complaint no later than August 4, 2014 (which would make it the Second Amended Complaint). Discovery is stayed (halted) until further action from the Court
As predicted, defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss citing no formal contract. While emails between parties may be considered a binding contract, defendants make the argument that the terms were not definite and were only an “agreement to agree.” However, the news that Main Events may amend its Complaint may mean it will provide further definitive information on its claim. MMA Payout will keep you posted on the lawsuit.
July 8, 2014
The Zuffa-New York lawsuit will have to wait a little longer for resolution as the Court has granted an extension of time request by New York to file its Summary Judgment motion. The new deadline is for July 31st with the last responsive briefing not due until September 4, 2014.
In a letter to the Court on June 25, 2014, the New York Attorney General requested an extension of time as one of its lead attorneys on the case was leaving the office on July 3rd. In addition, New York indicated that key non-party witnesses were out of the office and could not be contacted. It appears that these witnesses would provide declarations that would support New York’s Motion for Summary Judgment which, if the Court granted, would effectively end the lawsuit. New York also argues that Zuffa’s Complaint is long and two weeks to respond to Zuffa’s Response to its moving papers would not be enough time. Zuffa opposed the extension as you can see the letter to the Court here.
The Court granted the Motion which allows the filing of the motions to occur on July 31st instead of the original July 3rd Court order. Response to the Summary Judgment will be August 21st and New York’s Reply briefing would be due on September 4th.
It always makes me laugh when I read that attorneys need more time to respond to things that they want. Yes, it’s cynical but New York wants to file a motion, and now tells the Court that it doesn’t have sufficient time to do it per the parameters the Court set. Also, here’s a bunch of other excuses which include the revelation that Zuffa’s lawsuit is quite long. They should have known this, right? I have been in situations where the Court just said, “Tough.” And, you have to stay up a little later to do things and make do. With that out of my system, the Court allowing the extension is probably fair considering it’s the first one that they requested. Both parties get an extra week to fashion responses to the motions.
As far as when these motions will be decided and if there will be a resolution to this case. Maybe next summer? At the earliest we probably would get a ruling by the end of the year or early 2015.